It would be interesting if there were domains for multi-pronged corporate (or even non-corporate) initiatives.
For instance, let's use Passport as an example (despite the fact that this particular service appears to be dying off). What if every passport-enabled site had a.pass domain. So you could go to, say, BestBuy.com if you wanted the regular site, but BestBuy.pass if you were a happy Passport user (I'm sure there's one or two out there) and didn't want to bother with a manual login.
In almost any popular artform, the mainstream, easily accessible stuff will almost always be dreck. There are exceptions - The Beatles, for instance. There was a period in the 60s and 70s when some of the most popular music was also brilliant. But you can't expect that as a general rule.
People who aren't enthusiasts don't value the art the same way - they want something relatable that doesn't require much work. And that's ok. They're enthusiastic about other things. So if they want to listen to Usher and Kelis and Britney Spears, they're welcome to it. It serves a function for them.
People who really care about music (me, and apparently you, for instance) have different priorities, and that's OK too. They enjoy music that makes them think. They enjoy arguing the merits of different artists and genres, and listening with a critical ear. It's a different type of experience for them. But at least in my case, I'm sure someone who cares about visual arts would be aghast with the crap I'm willing to hang on my walls. It matters to them, but it doesn't matter to me.
There will always be enthusiasts who want meaningful, inventive music. I count myself among them. There will always be people turning to underground scenes, college radio, Internet blogs, local concerts and word-of-mouth when big media falls short of providing anything interesting.
If this tech can help the big-deal studios find new drivel to promote to the masses -- who may have other interests and simply don't CARE that much about quality music -- so be it. For some people, music just isn't that important. They want something to keep them busy in the car, or at a club -- and that's OK.
For the rest of us, there will ALWAYS be people slightly off the radar doign interesting things. Real music isn't going away.
I have no idea if there's anything to this, but it's plausible:
Women have less of an inclinatoin to math/science, either because of their natural ability or because of some natural predisposition to be disinterested.
As a result, the field gets dominated by men. Those women who serve as exceptions are STILL less inclined to become involved because of societal conditioning that says they wouldn't be welcome, and that women's work is elsewhere.
And hey, let's make this circular. Let's suppose things have been this way for a while (which they have). Maybe over time our biology has evolved to better match the roles we were serving in society anyway. So maybe over thousands of years, women BECAME biologically less inclined to the sciences, because ability in those areas was becoming vestigial for them.
Hey, my father gave birth to a baby, and I'll be damned if he wasn't the best baby-maker I've ever seen. Of course, he had to work twice as hard at making babies to even earn a sliver of respect in the woman-dominated baby field. But after years of perseverence, the other baby makers came to think of him as "just one of the girls,"...
Many open source products have corporate backing. So maybe someone would have picked up the ball on Mozilla if AOL had abandoned it completely. Maybe they wouldn't have. All I'm saying is AOL is the one that got the job done, one way or another.
Well, they used it in one of their products - Netscape. And I believe (I could be wrong) Gecko is used in AOL's compuserve client.
It is a shame AOL's official client doesn't use gecko - it would have just about forced sites aroudn the 'net to become compliant, and to stop using silly IE-only technologies for functions that can be accomplished with plain HTML or sane plug-ins. But that was a business decision, and the company used its support of Mozilla as leverage deals with MS for what it thought was its own gain.
You've got to give them some credit - Mozilla likely wouldn't be a very usable project without AOL. Maybe it would - Konqueror/KHTML got pretty good without AOL's help. But Netscape and AOL WERE the ones to step up to the plate in this case.
A memorial service for Almond Paste will be held at the Home of Rest for the Heathens at noon tomorrow. Mr. Paste is survived by Cashew Paste, Peanut Paste, and That Kid Who Eats Paste.
In lieu of flowers, please send donations to the Mozilla Fund.
Mozilla's thunder IS their thunder. Mozilla is based on the old Netscape code, and Netscape/AOL have played a tremendous part in developing Mozilla.
What's more its the mostly BSD-ish MPL in this case, not the GPL -- and the MPL is designed explicitly so that the code can be used in projects this way. If the Mozilla powers that be wanted to avoid it, they would have used a difference license.
When the update comes out, make part of the install the (optional but highly recomended, with the GUI giving the user the choice) outright replacement of the old version with the new version. When an update doesn't fix anything critical, have it simply install itself alongside the old version.
I've had no problem accessing 80, or for that matter 8080, from my temporary streaming mp3 server (which I used to get access to my music collection at work) using verizon. It's no longer up so I can't verify if something changed, but a few months ago I was OK.
The crummy upload bandwidth, however, was another issue...
Ok, so if the problem is uploading too much, why not simply set upload caps - high enough to be non-issues for anyone NOT running servers, but low enough to cause problems for anyone trying to use enough bandwidth that it's no longer profitable for Comcast too offer you the deal.
In effect, this is what they're doing anyway - low-bandwidth servers stay off the radar, and they only enforce the policy when you become big enough to catch their attention. So why not set up some hard limits - maybe with the option to pay for overages as needed?
Well, that's the maintainer's fault. The maintainer should be making the dependencies generic enough to satisfy a default version of the target distro(s), as well as an upgraded version (unless the upgrade legitimately breaks compatibility).
The real problem is where upgrading X requires installing Y, which requires upgrading Z -- which is a buggy upgrade or which breaks other things on your system.
I've always thought the modern windows way of installing/uninstalling is more graceful. Install the app, with any needed shared libraries (leaving older versions in place if need be). When it comes time to uninstall, ASK the user if libraries potentially used by multiple apps (that don't actually appear in use by anything) should be removed. Don't tie huge clumps of files into single packages that can only be installed/removed in one lump.
Then explain AOL's prevelance (even if its marketshare is finally dropping). And explain why several ISPs, including AOL, Earthlink, Netzero, etc are advertising virus-scanning and other protections as new services (sometimes for a small additional cost).
I would say MOST ISPs should impliment these features at the server level, but give savvy users the option to turn it off. If there's a niche market for those who would rather save a few bucks on an ISP that doesn't license expensive virus-scanning software or beef up its computers to deal with the overhead, then it would be nice for those ISPs to exist as well.
Vendors are the ones smacking the huge gobs of proprietary data* into XML. It's a lock-in practice. Like Microsoft's close hold on the DOC format, it prevents interoperation with competing, less prominent products - so the other products can be killed off or at least kept a minor nusiance.
*I propose a new Acronym - HGoPD, for the now oft-mentioned Huge Gobs of Proprietary Data.
You wouldn't have to. Instead find yourself an ISP that advertises lower costs because it doesn't spend money on features useless to savvy users. The vast majority of people would be better off with the virus-scanning ISP. You'd be better off with the non-virus-scanning ISP.
If there's not enough of a market to cater to people like you, buck up and take it. The companies don't need to suffer to catrer to a small market like the one you might represent.
I said ideally. What would be wrong with an ISP that ONLY will deliver encypted mail, and that requires secure logins and password authentications etc to access it? Why is unencrypted mail over pop3 with plaintext passwords still so common when alternatives exist, and are usually supported by most e-mail clients?
If I was an ISP, I'd be advertising security (which protects you from, say, identity theft) as an option, and explain that with freely available e-mail programs and PGP you can lock things down so much that even the ISP admins can't read your mail.
Ideally, the machines at the ISP would be set up so that even Root couldn't read the mail under normal circumstances - it would be encrypted and only tranlated to something readable at the request of the user.
But then again, I doubt that's actually the setup in many, many places.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible to mod something -1 "oy?"
It would be interesting if there were domains for multi-pronged corporate (or even non-corporate) initiatives.
.pass domain. So you could go to, say, BestBuy.com if you wanted the regular site, but BestBuy.pass if you were a happy Passport user (I'm sure there's one or two out there) and didn't want to bother with a manual login.
For instance, let's use Passport as an example (despite the fact that this particular service appears to be dying off). What if every passport-enabled site had a
In almost any popular artform, the mainstream, easily accessible stuff will almost always be dreck. There are exceptions - The Beatles, for instance. There was a period in the 60s and 70s when some of the most popular music was also brilliant. But you can't expect that as a general rule.
People who aren't enthusiasts don't value the art the same way - they want something relatable that doesn't require much work. And that's ok. They're enthusiastic about other things. So if they want to listen to Usher and Kelis and Britney Spears, they're welcome to it. It serves a function for them.
People who really care about music (me, and apparently you, for instance) have different priorities, and that's OK too. They enjoy music that makes them think. They enjoy arguing the merits of different artists and genres, and listening with a critical ear. It's a different type of experience for them. But at least in my case, I'm sure someone who cares about visual arts would be aghast with the crap I'm willing to hang on my walls. It matters to them, but it doesn't matter to me.
Well, I suppose that's the less painful of two possibilities ...
[Every male reading the post just crossed his legs.]
No, I don't.
There will always be enthusiasts who want meaningful, inventive music. I count myself among them. There will always be people turning to underground scenes, college radio, Internet blogs, local concerts and word-of-mouth when big media falls short of providing anything interesting.
If this tech can help the big-deal studios find new drivel to promote to the masses -- who may have other interests and simply don't CARE that much about quality music -- so be it. For some people, music just isn't that important. They want something to keep them busy in the car, or at a club -- and that's OK.
For the rest of us, there will ALWAYS be people slightly off the radar doign interesting things. Real music isn't going away.
Or maybe it's some combonation of both.
I have no idea if there's anything to this, but it's plausible:
Women have less of an inclinatoin to math/science, either because of their natural ability or because of some natural predisposition to be disinterested.
As a result, the field gets dominated by men. Those women who serve as exceptions are STILL less inclined to become involved because of societal conditioning that says they wouldn't be welcome, and that women's work is elsewhere.
And hey, let's make this circular. Let's suppose things have been this way for a while (which they have). Maybe over time our biology has evolved to better match the roles we were serving in society anyway. So maybe over thousands of years, women BECAME biologically less inclined to the sciences, because ability in those areas was becoming vestigial for them.
Hey, my father gave birth to a baby, and I'll be damned if he wasn't the best baby-maker I've ever seen. Of course, he had to work twice as hard at making babies to even earn a sliver of respect in the woman-dominated baby field. But after years of perseverence, the other baby makers came to think of him as "just one of the girls," ...
Darth Vader is WHAT?!
Thanks for ruining the movie for me.
Many open source products have corporate backing. So maybe someone would have picked up the ball on Mozilla if AOL had abandoned it completely. Maybe they wouldn't have. All I'm saying is AOL is the one that got the job done, one way or another.
Oh come on, that was funny, you humorless mods! Darn you! Darn you all to heck!
ok, THIS one is off-topic.
Well, they used it in one of their products - Netscape. And I believe (I could be wrong) Gecko is used in AOL's compuserve client.
It is a shame AOL's official client doesn't use gecko - it would have just about forced sites aroudn the 'net to become compliant, and to stop using silly IE-only technologies for functions that can be accomplished with plain HTML or sane plug-ins. But that was a business decision, and the company used its support of Mozilla as leverage deals with MS for what it thought was its own gain.
You've got to give them some credit - Mozilla likely wouldn't be a very usable project without AOL. Maybe it would - Konqueror/KHTML got pretty good without AOL's help. But Netscape and AOL WERE the ones to step up to the plate in this case.
A memorial service for Almond Paste will be held at the Home of Rest for the Heathens at noon tomorrow. Mr. Paste is survived by Cashew Paste, Peanut Paste, and That Kid Who Eats Paste.
In lieu of flowers, please send donations to the Mozilla Fund.
Mozilla's thunder IS their thunder. Mozilla is based on the old Netscape code, and Netscape/AOL have played a tremendous part in developing Mozilla.
What's more its the mostly BSD-ish MPL in this case, not the GPL -- and the MPL is designed explicitly so that the code can be used in projects this way. If the Mozilla powers that be wanted to avoid it, they would have used a difference license.
When the update comes out, make part of the install the (optional but highly recomended, with the GUI giving the user the choice) outright replacement of the old version with the new version. When an update doesn't fix anything critical, have it simply install itself alongside the old version.
I've had no problem accessing 80, or for that matter 8080, from my temporary streaming mp3 server (which I used to get access to my music collection at work) using verizon. It's no longer up so I can't verify if something changed, but a few months ago I was OK.
...
The crummy upload bandwidth, however, was another issue
Ok, so if the problem is uploading too much, why not simply set upload caps - high enough to be non-issues for anyone NOT running servers, but low enough to cause problems for anyone trying to use enough bandwidth that it's no longer profitable for Comcast too offer you the deal.
In effect, this is what they're doing anyway - low-bandwidth servers stay off the radar, and they only enforce the policy when you become big enough to catch their attention. So why not set up some hard limits - maybe with the option to pay for overages as needed?
Well, that's the maintainer's fault. The maintainer should be making the dependencies generic enough to satisfy a default version of the target distro(s), as well as an upgraded version (unless the upgrade legitimately breaks compatibility).
The real problem is where upgrading X requires installing Y, which requires upgrading Z -- which is a buggy upgrade or which breaks other things on your system.
I've always thought the modern windows way of installing/uninstalling is more graceful. Install the app, with any needed shared libraries (leaving older versions in place if need be). When it comes time to uninstall, ASK the user if libraries potentially used by multiple apps (that don't actually appear in use by anything) should be removed. Don't tie huge clumps of files into single packages that can only be installed/removed in one lump.
Hell, I remember it when it was Styleware. But I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Then explain AOL's prevelance (even if its marketshare is finally dropping). And explain why several ISPs, including AOL, Earthlink, Netzero, etc are advertising virus-scanning and other protections as new services (sometimes for a small additional cost).
I would say MOST ISPs should impliment these features at the server level, but give savvy users the option to turn it off. If there's a niche market for those who would rather save a few bucks on an ISP that doesn't license expensive virus-scanning software or beef up its computers to deal with the overhead, then it would be nice for those ISPs to exist as well.
Vendors are the ones smacking the huge gobs of proprietary data* into XML. It's a lock-in practice. Like Microsoft's close hold on the DOC format, it prevents interoperation with competing, less prominent products - so the other products can be killed off or at least kept a minor nusiance.
*I propose a new Acronym - HGoPD, for the now oft-mentioned Huge Gobs of Proprietary Data.
You wouldn't have to. Instead find yourself an ISP that advertises lower costs because it doesn't spend money on features useless to savvy users. The vast majority of people would be better off with the virus-scanning ISP. You'd be better off with the non-virus-scanning ISP.
If there's not enough of a market to cater to people like you, buck up and take it. The companies don't need to suffer to catrer to a small market like the one you might represent.
me makey typo. I meant weatherbug is Adware. Adaware is very usefull, I agree.
Weatherbug isn't spyware. It's adaware, which in my book is almostasannoyingware.
I said ideally. What would be wrong with an ISP that ONLY will deliver encypted mail, and that requires secure logins and password authentications etc to access it? Why is unencrypted mail over pop3 with plaintext passwords still so common when alternatives exist, and are usually supported by most e-mail clients?
If I was an ISP, I'd be advertising security (which protects you from, say, identity theft) as an option, and explain that with freely available e-mail programs and PGP you can lock things down so much that even the ISP admins can't read your mail.
Ideally, the machines at the ISP would be set up so that even Root couldn't read the mail under normal circumstances - it would be encrypted and only tranlated to something readable at the request of the user.
But then again, I doubt that's actually the setup in many, many places.